As a strong advocate for community engagement, you might imagine I believe that involving the public in this way is a good thing. That is not the case. Even though I am a strong supporter of marriage equality (notice the blog background is rainbow coloured), I do not think the idea of a national postal vote (or survey) is a good idea.

There are three main reasons I am opposed to the postal vote (but will still vote in favour of marriage equality and strongly urge others to do so).

Social justice and equality should not be subject to a popularity contest

This change was made by an Act of Parliament based on the claim by the Attorney General that the “vast majority of Australians” supported a traditional definition of marriage. At the time, a national Gallup Poll found that 42% of Australians supported the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, 55% opposed it and 3% were undecided.

Since 2012, all the Gallup polls, however, have found that at least 50% of Australians now support the legal recognition of same-sex marriage, with the latest poll (May 2017) finding that, 64% of Australians supported it, 34 % opposed it and 2% were undecided.

The postal vote sends the message that it was fine to for the Government to prevent same-sex marriage, but they now need the nation’s permission before accepting that a fundamental human right (the right to marry as identified in Article 16 of the Universal Declaration of Human Rights) applies to people in love with somebody of the same sex.

Protecting the rights and interests of minority groups should not be subject to the agreement of the majority.

The LGBTI community will be subjected to needless pain and hate

The debate will get ugly. Despite the Prime Minister’s belief that we are “perfectly capable of having a respectful discussion and debate” and Senator Corman’s calls for “campaigners on both sides of this debate to express their arguments with courtesy and respect,” the LGBTI community is going to be hit hard by the debate.

The debate leading up to the postal vote will intensify claims that gays and lesbians are immoral, dangerous, bad parents and a threat. The children of same-sex parents will be told their families are not genuine families, their families are a threat to society, they will not do as well as children from “normal” families and they run the risk of sexual exploitation and abuse.

The Australian Marriage Forum quotes the American College of Pediatricians (who believe “the basic father-mother family unit, within the context of marriage, to be the optimal setting for childhood development”) in suggesting:

The environment in which children are reared is absolutely critical to their development. Given the current body of research, the American College of Pediatricians believes it is inappropriate, potentially hazardous to children, and dangerously irresponsible to change the age-old prohibition on homosexual parenting, whether by adoption, foster care, or by reproductive manipulation. This position is rooted in the best available science. (Australian Marriage Forum, emphasis added)

For adult children raised by gay or lesbian parents, what are the Social Outcome?

Government assistance

Unemployment

Sexual victimisation

Sexual transmitted disease (sic)

Drug abuse

Much of the opposition to marriage equality is based on the belief that homosexuality is unnatural, immoral and even evil. The barrage of such messages is painful, harmful and unloving.

The Postal Vote will not encourage thoughtful discussion

There will be some thoughtful discussion about the nature of marriage and the implications of allowing same-sex marriage, but most of the debate will be based on irrational arguments, marketing and slogans.

For example, former Prime Minister, Tony Abbott, is linking same-sex marriage to political correctness:

And I say to you, if you don’t like same-sex marriage, vote no. If you’re worried about religious freedom, and freedom of speech, vote no. If you don’t like political correctness, vote no – because voting no will help to stop political correctness in its tracks. (The Conversation)

Linking the same-sex marriage to “political correctness” is an attempt to tap into some people’s fear that things have gone too far. It is nothing to do with the issues at the heart of the debate.

It isn’t just the opponents of marriage equality that I’m concerned about. Supporters of marriage equality will also rely on slogans, make unsupported or wild claims, and be involved in hate speech. Take for instance the following examples on the Australian Christian Lobby (ACL) Facebook page.

[Let me be clear, I find the ACL, and the style of Christianity they represent, abhorrent but I recognise their right to participate in public debate and do not believe they should be subjected to threatening or violent language or actions.]

Mainstream and social media are likely to focus on sensational and outrageous claims. If we wanted to seriously engage the community in discussion, we would organise well facilitated community conversations (e.g., world cafés and citizen juries) or provide other means of promoting meaningful dialogue.

I am interested in what opponents fear about legalising same-sex marriage and what their concerns are, but I’m not at all interested in hearing slogans and misleading claims. Labelling the children of same-sex parents as being “the stolen generation” is not helpful.

I have more sympathy when people are concerned that it is the start of a slippery slope and could undermine traditional values. But in the environment of campaigning rather than thoughtful dialogue, this argument can lead to offensive, hurtful claims. In a speech in parliament Cory Bernardi claimed that same-sex marriage is “another tear in the fabric of our social mores” and its supporters “seek to tear down our institutions that have been built and have sustained our civilisation for thousands of years”. He even linked same-sex marriage to bestiality:

There are even some creepy people out there—and I say ‘creepy’ deliberately—who are unfortunately afforded a great deal more respect than I believe they deserve. These creepy people say it is okay to have consensual sexual relations between humans and animals. Will that be a future step? In the future will we say, ‘These two creatures love each other and maybe they should be able to be joined in a union?’

I can understand that some people are worried that marriage equality will lead to people needing to act against their conscious. We need to take these concerns seriously, explore how to address their concerns and consider to what extent people should be able to discriminate on the grounds of sexuality. It isn’t fair, however, to deny some people the fundamental right of getting married because we are worried that people who don’t like homosexuality might need to bake them a wedding cake.

The postal vote will not promote meaningful community engagement. I would much prefer the Government to have the courage to take a stand for marriage equality and legalise same-sex marriage. As we do face a postal vote, I can only hope there is a resounding “YES” and that the supporters of marriage equality will work together make it happen.

If you liked this post please follow my blog, and you might like to look at:

5 Responses to 3 reasons I do not support a postal vote on same-sex marriage

Hi Graeme. Thanks for expressing these points clearly and sensibly. Your three reasons help me to consider some legitimate concerns regarding the postal vote. While acknowledging some parts of your second point, which is a really common one made, I think that it’s not enough reason not to have a public vote/survey. People’s feelings already have been, and will continue to be, hurt – but such a fundamental civic change has to consider more than people’s feelings, as far-reaching as those feelings are. I also mostly disagree that it’s a valid point, because while it sounds good in writing, most “hate-filled”, disrespectful speech I’ve heard/seen has come from supporters of changing the marriage law definition. (One of the reasons I appreciate your other post on this topic). This is my longer-and-less-concise-than-yours post on the vote: https://idealistatlarge.wordpress.com/2017/08/27/1135/
I can see, from reading this, that it’s not as precise as it could be in a couple of explanations (such as what I’ve perceived the main reason for opposition to the vote to be). So thanks for making me more aware of that. My main desire is really the same, though: to have decent, civilised, respectful discussion about issues like this. It’s a call that keeps being made as issues become current here; I really look forward to when it starts properly happening!

I think there are a range of types of hateful and painful comments. I agree that neither side has a monopoly on aggressive and abusive language. Don’t know that I’d agree that those who support marriage equality are worse than who oppose same-sex marriage, but I haven’t looked at the evidence either way so you could be right. I totally agree that this sort of debate has no place. (For example I have expressed concern about the response Margaret Court received compared to Ian Thorpe. I do think there is a big difference between speaking out on behalf of people who are marginalised and discriminated against and speaking out in favour of continuing to discriminate against them, but I do accept that Court has the right to speak out and don’t agree with calls to rename the Margaret Court court and think she faced inappropriate abuse. I could be in favour of changing the name of something that honoured a person who held really extreme views such as supporting the Nazi in WWII but, while I disagree with Court, I don’t think she was deliberately being hurtful – even though she was.)

Some of the painful, and at times hateful (but not always), messages that concerns me are the ones that tell LGBTI people that their life style (or they themselves) are immoral, that their families are not as good as a heterosexual family, that children of same-sex couples are more likely to suffer abuse and so on. Where do we draw the line on allowing people to express views that put down people? Hopefully we would not see as being acceptable statements like women ask to be raped, that people who experience domestic violence have made their bed so should lie in it, that white Australians are superior to Aboriginal people and so on. Being a supporter of community engagement does not mean that I believe people should have a license to say whatever they want regardless of facts or the impact it can have on other people.

Some of my friends are liking a post on face book that links same-sex marriage to depriving children of their mother or father (without acknowledging that the same could be said of things like divorce and adoption). My friends aren’t “unloving, inconsiderate and vitriolic” but it doesn’t mean that this point of view is not hurtful (and I would argue is based on a poor chain of reasoning).

Most decisions made by government are not based on a plebiscite and I haven’t seen any convincing argument that there is a case that this is so different that it justifies it. I think it is fair enough to say that, like becoming a republic, same-sex marriage is inevitable. It mightn’t be this time, but it will come and so the postal vote is contributing to unnecessary social division and pain.

Prescilla.
If you are not interested in this bullshit, then you must vote!

This should have been a compulsory poll-type vote so that the result would be a clear-cut.

I sure hope that all answers to the posted votes are received … Don’t t think we’ll be getting a “thank you,, we have received your vote – it was not lost – and therefore it will be counted”

Should the majority vote yes , then you’ll be hearing a lot lot more about the hundreds and hundreds of accommodating changes that must be addressed with same-sex marriage …
and you will NOT be asked to vote on each and every one.

Welcome to Sustaining Community

Families, community engagement and environmental sustainability – for parents, students, practitioners and anyone who wants to make a difference. By Graeme Stuart from the Family Action Centre at the University of Newcastle. The views are my own.